Not really on-topic stuff from "N6 - Galway City Outer Bypass" thread

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Where is the evidence to show that the NHS cycle ambulance service is relevant to this thread??

I have asked you repeatedly and you still refuse to engage me on this issue. How is a bicycle first responder service relevant to the issue of patient transport and of the safety of patients being moved towards a hospital?

I can sympathise with the view that talk of deaths in ambulances would count as little more than hyperbole, but everyone in this thread ought to know why paramedics on bikes are relevant at all!

1. The thread title includes the phrase "not really on-topic stuff".

2. I already responded to your ponts re this minor issue:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84143663&postcount=9
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84156226&postcount=39
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84153774&postcount=34

3. At no stage did I suggest that NHS-style Cycle Response Units could be used to transport patients -- hence my "straw man" retort, imo justified. The reference -- which, I repeat, was made as an aside in response to an earlier posts about mythical patients dying in gridlocked ambulances -- was intended to support the general point that cycling-based solutions are actually an effective way to deal with situations where traffic congestion is a problem, and are not actually as looney as some might like to portray. Note the refence on the NHS webpage to the instigator of the idea being laughed at when he first proposed it. I'm making such a point on Boards, where references to cycling or sustainable transport are, for some, like a red rag to a bull. Look at the main GCOB thread and you will see that it is peppered with epithets such as "psycholing forum", "a cyclist -- speaks volumes before we've even begun", "ecomentalist", etc.

4. Can we consider this particular micro-discussion closed now, please?

lucernarian

My question on this was raised before the thread was split, which you are aware of. Also I don't think Victor's intention was to allow a free-for-all on any discussion pertaining to road usage in general and I'm not sure if I ought to respond directly, given the warnings issued in the other threads about continuing the "bicycle paramedic" discussion.

Anyway, the responses so far haven't answered why or explained the relevance of the bikes in establishing the risk of congestion along the quincentennial bridge to patient safety within ambulances. I fully accept that you didn't say or suggest that bicycles could be used to transport patients, yet here we are and I still haven't heard why they were brought up in the context of the N6 GCOB thread. It's for that reason that I remain skeptical of the motivations behind raising the issue. It doesn't even debunk the idea that patient safety might (hypothetically, sure) be compromised by traffic congestion without the GCOB being built.

hopefully the off topic silliness on the GCOB thread can be carried on here

dloob

I contributed to the off topicness in the last thread myself so mea culpa there.

But why is it that every traffic thread related to Galway City ends up getting locked?
It got to the stage that discussion of traffic had to be banned in the Galway City forum for a time.

Don't think we will hear anything about the bypass until the end of the year if even then.
At least I'm unaffected as I rarely have to go near the bridges but my sympathies to those who do.

tharlear

As discussion has been axed on the other thread I wish to add one fact for review.
The population of Galway west of the Corrib according to the 2006 census data is 73693
West of the river inside the city boundary is 37782
West of the Corrib outside the city boundary is 35911

and a few comments

If one looks at the population of the whole county of Galway over the last 70 years it has not changed much. The distribution of population has shifted to the city.

So however was talking about a population below 20K west of the river is off by about 200 to years. And as the bike wasn't a common means of transport then, and cars were in the future, obriens bridge "1818 on the present bridge plack"" was probaliby sufficiant.

GalwayMagpie

Bertie Ahern said, in 2006, of our economy: "The boom is getting boomier”.
Well when it comes to the GCOB in 2013 "the farce is is getting farce-ier"

http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/1316-landowners-along-galway-outer-bypass-route-in-limbo-as-cpos-fall

Galway County Council have informed land owners along the route that while compulsory purchase orders have been lapsed, they cannot dispose of their property.

Iwannahurl

Noel Grealish is quoted in yesterday's Sentinel as saying that the GCOB is 20 years away.

GalwayMagpie

Did anything ever come of this tender that went out last May? (-ish)


N6 Galway By-pass Multi-disciplinary Engineering Consultancy Services
The Council requires multi-disciplinary engineering consultancy services in relation to the proposed N6 Galway by-pass, which would extend from the R336 Regional Road west of Galway City, to the N6 east of the City. The proposed road development would have an approximate length of 24 km. The commission is to advance the development of the proposed road to completion of Phase 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the NRA Project Management Guidelines.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/pu.../publictenders


http://www.mytenders.ie/search/show/...x?ID=JUN408034

Irish_rat

This has to be the worst named thread on boards.

Iwannahurl

Irish_rat wrote: »

This has to be the worst named thread on boards.

Not an on-topic comment, which justifies the title of the thread perhaps.

annfield1978

Have the Engineering Consultants been appointed for this yet?

antoobrien

annfield1978 wrote: »

Have the Engineering Consultants been appointed for this yet?

There's work in progress on updating/extending the EIS.

GalwayMagpie

antoobrien wrote: »

There's work in progress on updating/extending the EIS.

So have the tenders that were put out at the beginning of the summer been awarded?

Frank Black

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

So have the tenders that were put out at the beginning of the summer been awarded?

The Consultants for this scheme have not been appointed yet. The Tender return date is 25th October - assuming no extensions to the Tender Period.
I would imagine it will take a minimum of a month to assess the submissions and appoint.
There's a 3 year period in the Contract to bring the scheme through all the preliminary design phases - this is not a case of amending the previous EIS, but of going right back to Constraints Study Stage.

Given the likelihood of this scheme being brought to the European Commission there could be a considerably extended planning permission period than what would normally be expected from a scheme which goes before Bord Pleanala. Allow a year for this would bring the scheme up to start of 2018 before specimen design and contract documents could be produced and a tender run - allow at least another 6 months for this and award.

So, by my calculations, you would be looking at mid-2018 as an absolute best case scenario for construction work to commence with perhaps 2.5 year construction period - so 2021 for an optimistic but unlikely opening year.

GalwayMagpie

We're Back Baby!!!!

http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/1738-council-renews-aim-to-have-bypass-open-by-2019

The Galway City Outer Bypass is now back on the table with new consultants to be in place by the end of the month and a fresh application where all route options will be re-examined likely to be made in early 2015 for the €300m project.

Galway City Councillors last night voted to hand Galway County Council status as lead authority over the scheme, which at the earliest – if no further obstacles were encountered – could be completed by 2019.

I shall now commence holding my breath until this is built....

what_traffic

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/1738-council-renews-aim-to-have-bypass-open-by-2019

"
Galway City Councillors last night voted to hand Galway County Council status as lead authority over the scheme, which at the earliest – if no further obstacles were encountered – could be completed by 2019.
"

Were the County Council not the lead authority over the previous failed scheme as well?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Were the County Council not the lead authority over the previous failed scheme as well?

They were, this is a PR exercise.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

They were, this is a PR exercise.

It's hardly a PR exercise, it's because some of the study area is in Galway City and some in Galway County so one authority needs to be appointed as lead.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

It's hardly a PR exercise, it's because some of the study area is in Galway City and some in Galway County so one authority needs to be appointed as lead.

It's funny that Galway Co Council were the authority that the NRA were dealing with and made the application to ABP.

So yeah, this stinks of a PR exercise the year before a local election.

veryangryman

antoobrien wrote: »

It's funny that Galway Co Council were the authority that the NRA were dealing with and made the application to ABP.

So yeah, this stinks of a PR exercise the year before a local election.

Am i the only one who was thinking (up to now) that ABP stood for "Anti Bypass"?

antoobrien

veryangryman wrote: »

Am i the only one who was thinking (up to now) that ABP stood for "Anti Bypass"?

In fairness to them, they did give permission for part of it.

Iwannahurl

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

We're Back Baby!!!!

http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/1738-council-renews-aim-to-have-bypass-open-by-2019

I shall now commence holding my breath until this is built....

Until 2019?

Is there an election due around then as well, by any chance?

Iwannahurl

Frank Black wrote: »

It's hardly a PR exercise, it's because some of the study area is in Galway City and some in Galway County so one authority needs to be appointed as lead.

It's a new plan, presumably.

It might be worth noting here that the relevant Director of Services in City Hall is moving on, the director of the Galway Transport Unit is on extended leave, and the County Manager is not long away from retiring.

Who'll be minding the shop?

GalwayMagpie

I think this is as Frank Black suggested, the tender went out last May/June for "N6 Galway By-pass Multi-disciplinary Engineering Consultancy Services" and some of the lands are in the City and some are in the county.

As for who made the biggest cock up during the last exercise, lets just say that absolutely nobody walks away without some form of a bad odor following them...

http://ireland-tenders.eu/1069_N6_Galway_By-pass_Multi-disciplinary_Engineering_Consultancy_Services_2013_Galway

antoobrien

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

I think this is as Frank Black suggested, the tender went out last May/June for "N6 Galway By-pass Multi-disciplinary Engineering Consultancy Services" and some of the lands are in the City and some are in the county.

The reason the city tendered that is because the portions of the proposed road the effect the SACs & NHAs in the area are mostly within the city boundry.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

It's hardly a PR exercise, it's because some of the study area is in Galway City and some in Galway County so one authority needs to be appointed as lead.

There's more detail about what happened Monday night in today's Galway independent. The City Council gave the CoCo the right to control the parts of the proposed road that go through city council lands (not a whole lot).

Galway County Council will now take the lead on the project, after city councillors voted to approve a Section 85 Agreement under the Local Government Act, 2001 to allow the county council take charge of those parts of the road that will fall inside the city boundaries. Mr Gilmore said that the designers will now go back to the drawing board as regards the bypass route.

“It may be on the same route, it may not,” he said, adding that the council had identified a number of areas where the original design my be improved

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

There's more detail about what happened Monday night in today's Galway independent. The City Council gave the CoCo the right to control the parts of the proposed road that go through city council lands (not a whole lot).

Yep - it's fairly standard part of the statutory process when a scheme goes through a number of different local authorities - not really a PR exercise. The job will be run out of the Regional Design Office in Ballybrit with a dedicated team anyway - so it's not even a major issue which authority is lead.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

The job will be run out of the Regional Design Office in Ballybrit with a dedicated team anyway - so it's not even a major issue which authority is lead.

It has been run from there for years. Like I said, PR exercise.

what_traffic

Frank Black wrote: »

Yep - it's fairly standard part of the statutory process when a scheme goes through a number of different local authorities - not really a PR exercise. The job will be run out of the Regional Design Office in Ballybrit with a dedicated team anyway - so it's not even a major issue which authority is lead.

The previous scheme was done from here as well. Would tend to agree with antoobrien. It is PR filler; add information to bulk up the story. It's following exact same process as the previous scheme. The most useful information from Frank Gilmore's quotes in the piece(in the Sentinel 12-11-2013 not online) though is the possible change at the N17 crossing(additional junction) from the original scheme and different type of junction at Garraun.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

The previous scheme was done from here as well. Would tend to agree with antoobrien. It is PR filler; add information to bulk up the story. It's following exact same process as the previous scheme. The most useful information from Frank Gilmore's quotes in the piece(in the Sentinel 12-11-2013 not online) though is the possible change at the N17 crossing(additional junction) from the original scheme and different type of junction at Garraun.

This is also in the galway independent article (I linked earlier), but I didn't think that it was relevant given that this is an off-topic thread;).

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

It has been run from there for years. Like I said, PR exercise.

I think there's some confusion as to what's being described as a PR exercise.
Is it the appointment of Galway County County as the lead authority, which is just part of the statutory process, or the reporting of the appointment?

I don't really get the 'PR exercise' bit tbh. The scheme is at a new milestone. Prefered Consultants have been identified and will be appointed in a couple of weeks and the scheme will commence (yet again) down the NRA project management guidlelines route (Constraints, Route Selection, EIS).

What's PR about reporting on this?

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

I think there's some confusion as to what's being described as a PR exercise.
Is it the appointment of Galway County County as the lead authority, which is just part of the statutory process, or the reporting of the appointment?

All of it. Galway Co Co was already doing the donkey work, the city council were doing bits that related to the portions that passed through areas that they controlled.

There is very little actual difference in what's going on with this change. The CoCo are still directing the work that will go on within the city boundary, however now they will also be doing it, rather than waiting for the city council to do so.

And at the end of the day, the same people could end up doing the work anyway, since the CoCo would be stupid not to leverage the existing experience.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

All of it. Galway Co Co was already doing the donkey work, the city council were doing bits that related to the portions that passed through areas that they controlled.

There is very little actual difference in what's going on with this change. The CoCo are still directing the work that will go on within the city boundary, however now they will also be doing it, rather than waiting for the city council to do so.

And at the end of the day, the same people could end up doing the work anyway, since the CoCo would be stupid not to leverage the existing experience.

But this is a new scheme. The previous scheme is dead.
So the process of appointing Galway County Council as lead authority is part of the statutory process, namely Section 85 of the Local Government Act, 2001, which must be followed, Given the reasons the previous scheme failed, it's probably the exact opposite of a 'PR exercise', and I'm surprised to hear it being described as such.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

But this is a new scheme. The previous scheme is dead.

Nope. Still active. They have decided that there will have to be changes, but that doesn't "kill" anything.

Frank Black wrote: »

So the process of appointing Galway County Council as lead authority is part of the statutory process, namely Section 85 of the Local Government Act, 2001, which must be followed

According to the city council website this was done in 2004.

This Project is being undertaken by Galway County Council on its own behalf and on behalf of Galway City Council in accordance with the agreement made on the 28th June 2004 under section 85 of the Local Government Act 2001 and approved by the national roads Authority under Section 14(8) of the Roads Act, 1993.

Pure PR excercise.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

Nope. Still active. They have decided that there will have to be changes, but that doesn't "kill" anything. .

I'm afraid you're misinformed.

The scheme is starting all the way back at the begining of the PMG's as I have posted earlier. Perhaps some of the previous information gathered can be used to inform this scheme's design, but very little. Some of the GI is still perhaps relevant, but all the other surveys and constraints mapping carried out for the previous scheme is far too old to be relied on.

This is to all intents and purposes a new scheme to bypass Galway.

antoobrien wrote: »

According to the city council website this was done in 2004.



Pure PR excercise.

Yes, it was - for the previous scheme.

This is a new scheme.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

This is a new scheme.

Neither the city or council council can scrap an NRA scheme, so where are you getting this rubbish out of?

They don't need to "ceed control" again in order to come up with a new route.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

Neither the city or council council can scrap an NRA scheme, so where are you getting this rubbish out of?

What bit are you having trouble understanding.
The NRA only fund schemes - it's was never the NRA's scheme.
Besides, NRA are totally behind the scheme starting from afresh.

In terms of 'where am I getting this rubbish out of' - you could have a look in the procurement documents for new Consulantts which GCC advertised on e-tenders. I've posted previously on the thread about what they've advertised (the development of a new scheme) and I'd wager I've more understanding of the process than you.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

What bit are you having trouble understanding.
The NRA only fund schemes - it's was never the NRA's scheme.
Besides, NRA are totally behind the scheme starting from afresh.

What a laugh - NRA are the body responsible for building national roads. They hand off the particulars to LAs but EVERY national road is an NRA scheme and has been since 1993.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

What a laugh - NRA are the body responsible for building national roads. They hand off the particulars to LAs but EVERY national road is an NRA scheme and has been since 1993.

You're actually wrong. i don't really have time to get into the semantics of why right now and it would be a very boring discussion anyway.

But tbh, it's not really the point is it? I take it you've accepted that the scheme is a new one then?

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

You're actually wrong. i don't really have time to get into the semantics of why right now and it would be a very boring discussion anyway.

But tbh, it's not really the point is it? I take it you've accepted that the scheme is a new one then?

That's straight out of the AH playbook, well done.

Changing the route does not make it a new scheme.

Btw where you really went wrong was your "knowledge" about the NRA.

Mission Statement
Improve quality of life and national economic competitiveness by developing, maintaining and operating the national road network in a safe, cost effective and sustainable manner.

The National Roads Authority (NRA) was formally established as an independent statutory body under the Roads Act, 1993 with effect from 1 January, 1994.

The Authority's primary function, under the Roads Act 1993, is to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of National roads. For this purpose, it has overall responsibility for the planning, supervision of construction, road network management and maintenance on National roads.

Responsibilities of the Authority
The NRA has a number of specific functions under the Act, including:

Preparing, or arranging for the preparation of road designs, management and maintenance programmes and schemes for the provision of traffic signs and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) on national roads
Securing the carrying out of the management of construction, improvement and maintenance works on national roads
Allocating and paying grants for national roads, and training, research or testing activities in relation to any of its functions
The NRA has a general power to direct the road authority to "do any other thing which arises out of or is consequential on or is necessary or expedient for the purposes of or would facilitate the construction or maintenance of a national road".

The NRA may give specific directions to local road authorities relating to a number of matters, including motorway schemes; applications for a bridge orders; acquiring land by compulsory purchaser orders; preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and entering into contracts for and/or undertaking specified construction or maintenance works.ing specified construction or maintenance works.

It was always an NRA project and they directed Galway Co Co & Galway City Co to plan and build it. This has not changed.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

That's straight out of the AH playbook, well done.

Changing the route does not make it a new scheme.

Btw where you really went wrong was your "knowledge" about the NRA.



It was always an NRA project and they directed Galway Co Co & Galway City Co to plan and build it. This has not changed.

Oh dear, we're into semantics.
One more time.
The previous scheme identified a preferred route. Which was challenged all the way to Europe and ultimately found to have not followed the correct procedure. It's now dead.
A new scheme is now being developed to bypass Galway.

The NRA fund schemes and set down the process to be followed.
The LA's procure, and bring schemes through the stat process. They apply for PP for the scheme and defend it at the OH. They are the Client and it's 'their' scheme.

I have nearly 15years experience in the development, design and delivery of road schemes. I do actually know what I'm talking about.
What's your background as a matter of interest?

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

Oh dear, we're into semantics.
One more time.
The previous scheme identified a preferred route.

If that's what makes it a new scheme to you then we're on the 4th or 6th different GCOB scheme, depending on what you're counting.

1) There was the original proposed scheme N18-N59.
2) Original eastern Route N18-N59
3) First overall NRA scheme N6-N59 & N59-R336 (as a national route)
4) Approved scheme N6-N59, with N59-R336 to proceed as a local road
5) Western section re-incorporated into the scheme after the supreme court applied the ECJ ruling
6) whatever we have now

The new routes 2-5 didn't make this a new scheme, 1-3 were all done before the city council made a similar sign off in 2004.

New consultants or tenders don't make it a new scheme or we'd be somewhere around v20 of Gort-Tuam.

I really don't know where you're digging this crap out of, but it flies in the face of everything that has been published about this and other projects across the country.

I wonder do you work for the advertiser, the only place I've seen/heard mention of this being a "new scheme" is on their headline.

Iwannahurl

I notice that a City Councillor in Galway has brought up the issue of CPOs.

Cllr Frank Fahy expressed concern that the treatment of landowners along the original bypass route could lead to the project being delayed further.

Compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) on land along the route had now expired, he said, and, if these lands were to be used for the new plan, they would be acquired at 2013 prices rather than the 2006 prices, which would have applied under the original CPOs.

“Farmers have made substantial investments in land acquisition in the belief that they were going to be compensated at 2006 prices,” said Cllr Fahy.

“I personally feel that there is a possibility that landowners will take a case to Europe regarding the CPO and that the city outer bypass will be delayed another ten years,” he added, calling on all relevant bodies to ensure that landowners were treated fairly.

Source: http://www.galwayindependent.com/20131113/news/bypass-by-2019-S27586.html

Is he suggesting that people who made speculative investments in land around the original GCOB route should somehow be compensated?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is he suggesting that people who made speculative investments in land around the original GCOB route should somehow be compensated?

I doubt it, it's more likely that a few of Frank's neighbours bought/sold land to realign ownership along the route. It's kinda hard to drive cattle and sheep between fields with a DC in the way.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

If that's what makes it a new scheme to you then we're on the 4th or 6th different GCOB scheme, depending on what you're counting.

1) There was the original proposed scheme N18-N59.
2) Original eastern Route N18-N59
3) First overall NRA scheme N6-N59 & N59-R336 (as a national route)
4) Approved scheme N6-N59, with N59-R336 to proceed as a local road
5) Western section re-incorporated into the scheme after the supreme court applied the ECJ ruling
6) whatever we have now

The new routes 2-5 didn't make this a new scheme, 1-3 were all done before the city council made a similar sign off in 2004.

New consultants or tenders don't make it a new scheme or we'd be somewhere around v20 of Gort-Tuam.

I really don't know where you're digging this crap out of, but it flies in the face of everything that has been published about this and other projects across the country.

I wonder do you work for the advertiser, the only place I've seen/heard mention of this being a "new scheme" is on their headline.

You didn't answer my question, and seeing as you've accused me of 'not knowing what I'm talking about' or' talking crap' or not having 'knowledge' of the process, I think the question is reasonable.

What is your professional background which gives you the authority to make those kind of accusations about my posts?

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, and seeing as you've accused me of 'not knowing what I'm talking about' or' talking crap' or not having 'knowledge' of the process, I think the question is reasonable.

I don't need to answer said question as my occupation is on record (unlike yours) and has been since I joined.

You have given us not a shred of proof for your claims other than actions that are in fact normal in the course of any large project - new money to be spent for a new phase = new tender, not a new scheme. And yet because they have gone back to examine the route and habitats to see if there are any changes (like the ones ABP made when they granted permission for the eastern section) that may help the planning process, this is a new scheme?

As for this

The previous scheme identified a preferred route. Which was challenged all the way to Europe and ultimately found to have not followed the correct procedure. It's now dead.

That shows a real lack of understanding of what happened. Neither the ECJ not the Supreme Court "killed the scheme", nor the route. No they ruled that the process to grant permission to use this route was not correct. The process, not the route.

In fact the ECJ (through the Advocate) ruled that 6(4) is not a barrier to the route being used, just that the process for granting permission was flawed.

It's entirely possible that the habitat mapping etc will result in the exact same route being identified as optimal from the various points of view, environmental, transport etc. If this is the case the submission will be made - using the exact route you have described as "dead" under the IORPI process. So dead just plain wrong.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't need to answer said question as my occupation is on record (unlike yours) and has been since I joined.

You have given us not a shred of proof for your claims other than actions that are in fact normal in the course of any large project -new money to be spent for a new phase = new tender, not a new scheme.

I've looked at your first few posts since you joined and can see no reference of your professional experience - I don't intend to search through a few thousand posts - why don't you just state now what your background is. It would certainly be helpful to me and any other interested posters in terms of where to classify your accusations of lack of knowledge on the laughabilty scale. At the moment I have them at around the 8.5 out of 10 mark, but I'm willing to increase this if it turns out your just some randomer who can copy, paste and misunderstand information from the NRA's website.

I'm nearly 20 qualified as a Civil Engineer, 14 years Chartered and 15 years direct experience at a senior level, of all stages of the road design and construction process, from Feasibility right the way through Construction. I had lunch last week with one of the NRA's Regional Inspectors where we discussed this very project. In short I suspect I know a lot more than you do - but by all means, please prove me wrong.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

I've looked at your first few posts since you joined and can see no reference of your professional experience

Lazy Frank very lazy. It's not that hard to find and it's not in (many of) my posts.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

I'm nearly 20 qualified as a Civil Engineer, 14 years Chartered and 15 years direct experience at a senior level, of all stages of the road design and construction process, from Feasibility right the way through Construction. I had lunch last week with one of the NRA's Regional Inspectors where we discussed this very project.

Very good, so explain to me how the thing that have happened here make this new scheme, but in almost every other occasion I can find record of they have not resulted in a new scheme?

I think you are equating the overall scheme with the component projects.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

Lazy Frank very lazy. It's not that hard to find and it's not in (many of) my posts.

Ah ha!
A Software engineer!

Moving your critiques of my posts to a 10.

TBH, I'm not interested in a semantic debate on who 'owns' what or whether the 'scheme' in 'new' or not - I'm happy that I'm right, but don't really see how it adds any value to the debate on the (new) scheme - which is surely the whole point of the thread, no?

From the amount of times you post on this forum you seem like you're interested in it. If so, you'd be better off listening to those whose professional experience and background knowledge far outstrips your own, as opposed to trying to shout them down.
Who knows, you might even learn something new and interesting.

Of course, is that's not of interest to you, you can continue to denigrate my knowledge. It's not something I would intend to engage with you on, and given the gap in our backgrounds in terms of experience of the issues, it wouldn't be fair on yourself or very satisfying for me.